PTOTSLPOtherFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2021

The Nottwil Standard-Development and Implementation of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Based Clinical Standard Assessment for Post-acute Rehabilitation After Newly Acquired Spinal Cord Injury.

Anke Scheel-Sailer, Patricia Lampart, Melissa Selb and 5 others

PMID 36188783

WHAT IT FOUND

A new ICF-based assessment standard for spinal cord injury rehab saw high compliance for physical tests like muscle strength and mobility.

However, assessments for autonomic function, pain, and mental health were performed in only 35-41% of cases. The standard is feasible but requires stronger enforcement for these often-missed domains.

Key findings

01Compliance was high for core physical and neurological assessments, including the International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI, urological exams, manual muscle tests, range of motion, and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III.

02Assessments for autonomic function (ISAFSCI), pain (ISCIP, SCIPI), and anxiety/depression (HADS) had low compliance rates, ranging from 35% to 41%.

03The standard does not yet include validated tools for seven ICF categories, such as carrying out daily routines, handling stress, looking after one's health, doing housework, assisting others, basic interpersonal interactions, and intimate relationships.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study was conducted in a single specialized clinic, so results may not generalize to other settings. The hospital information system did not have automated reminders for all assessments during the pilot, which may have contributed to the low compliance rates for pain, autonomic, and mental health tools. Validated assessment tools were not available for seven ICF categories (e.g., intimate relationships, handling stress), leaving these areas of functioning undocumented by standardized measures. This is an implementation study of an assessment standard, not a clinical trial; it reports on process compliance, not patient outcomes or the effectiveness of the assessments themselves.

Declared interests

The authors declared no commercial or financial conflicts of interest. The handling editor declared a past collaboration with two of the authors.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the high compliance with physical tests as evidence that the entire standard is being followed. Assessments for autonomic function, pain, and mental health were missed in over half of the patients, indicating that a comprehensive ICF-based assessment is difficult to achieve without automated system support.

Read it on PubMed →